I have nothing against all-white, all-black, all-orange, or all-whatever crowds. It's about the hypocrisy, baby! As my friend Uncle Saul wrote: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

I think that the followers for the religion of Diversity believe that diversity is less about objective results than about what's going on inside your mind. Thus, to our resident leftists (all white, I would wager) and to all those white people at Obama's speech today, and to Obama, the actual, objective, observable, countable ethnic diversity in that crowd does not matter because all those people believe in Diversity and long for Diversity. They have Diversity in their hearts.

Tea parties can't be diverse even if they are objectively diverse because tea party types have not accepted Diversity into their hearts.

This meme-for-the-day will certainly bring the level of contempt for Obama that exists among some white Tea Partiers to every demographic!

Or maybe not. It sounds like it was a point too removed, philosophical, backwards and devoid of meaning for anyone to care about it. Except for people too disgruntled to care about real problems and real solutions in the first place.

Or maybe not. It sounds like it was a point too removed, philosophical, backwards and devoid of meaning for anyone to care about it. Except for people too disgruntled to care about real problems and real solutions in the first place.

Even the reactionary conservatives and the nutbags they dragged along to their protests kept their rhetoric clean until after that point.

UW-Madison lacks even the diversity of the city and state in which it is located. Why is Obama to blame for addressing such a cloistered campus? By your account, shouldn't he get credit for that, if anything?

I don't know if our National Socialists really believe what they're saying (always a tough call) or whether they think everyone else is going to be panicked by their attempts to make a big deal out of the size of a rally on a college campus, but the fact is teenagers have a very poor turnout rate for mid-term elections.

Ann Althouse said...

Yeah, it IS whiter than a typical tea party rally, isn't it?

That may be because about one third of blacks now support the Tea Party agenda.

(Watch how all those Tea Party black people have now become racist Althouse Hillbillies)

"Check out the post from earlier in the day, showing people lined up to get in."

This sounds like a task that some libs (i.e. the ones who freak out about the whiteness of the TPers) would undertake if they had video of a TP rally. But, I'm not sure that the cons here care enough about this issue to look through the video so that they can tally the race totals. I think the cons are going for more of a surface level "uncle Saul" move: make the opposition live up to their own rules, but don't waste much time doing so.

Ritmo - you guys give no quarter, so why should you expect any back? This is metaphorically speaking "to the death". Just politics, mind you!

First of all, this isn't even bad politics. It's stupid politics. It only serves to reinforce a rhetorical point among the "already converted".

Second, I don't defend Obama on the basis of his race. I don't have a problem observing how the dynamic of race works in America, but if you want to criticize his policies, that is the lens that works for me.

Third, everyone should have a sense of proportion, as well as perspective. I make stands that are no less strong in their rhetoric than those made by the other loyal Althousian goofballs here. But I don't believe that these remote details of political minutiae come anywhere close to being "life or death" issues.

rcocean, can you post a quick list of the "Left-wing trolls and Conservatives"? I mean that seriously. I visit here pretty regularly, but I think the hard-core commenters on the good Professor's site have absolutely no idea how much of a Pong-like echo chamber they've become, and how little the rest of the readers know who's who. We might all be surprised, and find it an interesting discussion.

Obviously, the dominance of white attendees says nothing about racism* in itself.

Such courtesies were never extended to the Tea Party gatherings, however, and it's a little disingenuous after 18 months of silence while people were being branded as racist for objecting to large government encroachments, to yell "I'm shocked! Shocked to find cries of racism based on attendance."

*One could ask why Obama chose Madison, that whitest of enclaves to visit, rather than Milwaukee, which actually has some black people in it, but I generously ascribe that to snobbery rather than racism.

Such courtesies were never extended to the Tea Party gatherings, however, and it's a little disingenuous after 18 months of silence while people were being branded as racist for objecting to large government encroachments, to yell "I'm shocked! Shocked to find cries of racism based on attendance."

Blake,

Did you see some of the signs that had been cited at Tea Party gatherings?

The least problematic signs I remember off the top of my head had bizarre (to say the least) references to "white slavery".

I'm sure I could do a Google Images search and come up with something as problematic, or worse, but I'm just surprised that you can tell me with a straight face that you weren't aware of slogans that displayed either an obvious, and negative, race fixation or some strange undertone therein at some of the Tea Parties - especially early on.

Why is it that you think Glenn Beck asked for signs to not be displayed when he was on the mall a few weeks ago?

Palladian, I understand. Just thought I'd try to develop a little cross-culture understanding between the fanatic commenters here and the much, much larger group that visits and considers commenting, and occasionally does so. It's a marketing question, really.

RE: the "hot, white, Wisconsin beef", I can't share your interest and disagree with your use of the comma after "white"...but that's even more boring, no doubt.

One of the chief issues of the campaign of 1912 was the fact the each of the three candidates would only speak to crowds who agreed to what they had to say. Woodrow Wilson who is generally regarded as our most racist President would only speak to white audiences and forbade any Africa Americans to attend his rallies. Theodore Roosevelt would only speak in front of progressives who also championed his programs of trust busting and limiting capitalism. And of course William Howard Taft would only speak at bakeries.(Pressing the Flesh, Presidential Campaigns and the People Who Run Them, Doris Kearns Goodwin, E Knof & Sons, 2009)

Those are cool maps. They clearly show that though we share cities, we do not share neighborhoods, for the most part. Self-segregation is just about as effect as the forced kind. When people have a choice, they do exactly what our culture has been railing against for decades.

Freedom must be stamped out if we are ever to achieve true diversity. First we need to get rid of the mixed breeds, cause they just confuse people. Sorry Obama, but it's for the good of the nation.

The reason you are so insufferable is that you pretend not to even *understand* the point being made, even if you completely disagree with it.

I mean, seriously, what is so difficult about saying something like "yes, I acknowledge that tea parties were criticized for being overwhelmingly white, but this is different because..." Instead, you pretend you suddenly become literal and pedantic and can't grasp the simplest of rhetorical devices.

Asian girls make it even *more* white though... especially if her boyfriend is a white engineering major.

It's a college town in Wisconsin. Of course it's going to be white.

Anyway, Asians don't count in the diversity sweepstakes. Asians make up something like 40 percent of the student body at UCLA/UCB and the still fret about Diversity. Diversity is code for "black and latino".

Despite the fact that he was himself handicapped, Franklin Delano Roosevelt refused to allow any Americans with disabilities to attend any of his campaign functions. All cripples, gimps and mentally disadvantaged citizens were swept off the street as the Presidential motorcade went by as the sight of such people upset patrician sensibilities of the polio-stricken Chief executive who said that “Gimp freak me out.” This was in fact why he was very seldom in the company of his wife Eleanor who unfortunately suffered from Hoof and Mouth disease. This equine malady resulted in her resembling “Man of War” and the unfortunate Sarah Jessica Parker who has often been termed a mannish whore. Neither of whom would have been allowed to attend FDR’s speeches.(Pressing the Flesh, Presidential Campaigns and the People Who Run Them, Doris Kearns Goodwin, E Knof & Sons, 2009)

President James Madison gave several campaign speeches but none were ever recorded. In fact no accounts of these speeches exist as the diminutive chief executive could not be seen over the heads of the crowd. And of course everyone was looking at his wife’s enormous breasts.(Pressing the Flesh, Presidential Campaigns and the People Who Run Them, Doris Kearns Goodwin, E Knof & Sons, 2009

When attempting a rhetorical device for its own sake, it's best to be silly and over the top, as the talented Trooper York so capably demonstrates.

Pretending there's the slightest bit of substance to something when there isn't is what makes it insufferable to everyone outside of Tea Party Land, Sofa King. But it's increasingly going beyond insufferable and into just plain pathetic.

I'm just giving you the outsider's view. Feel free to take it or leave it (and I'm sure you'll leave it). People have complained of a lack of liberals around this strange place (and independents would be nice, as well). I'm telling you why that is.

Wiki says: "The goal of rhetoric is to persuade towards a particular frame of view or a particular course of action, so appropriate rhetorical devices are used to construct sentences designed both to make the audience receptive through emotional changes and to provide a rational argument for the frame of view or course of action."

There's no persuasion here, Bag o'CH3COOH. None but the already converted will find anything funny or serious about posts by right-wingers lambasting white crowds in attendance at a speech made by Obama on a not-very diverse campus.

I was there, came late, got in, stood amidst the sea of faces, mostly students, they say, though shockingly not only students (I say shockingly because it was not easy to get to campus today if you lived farther than, say, a student or fac members, including Ann and I, are likely to live).

Surrounded as I was (in my spot) by a very nonuniversity crowd, it seemed clear to me that those who came and were not university-related were indeed often of color. I find that to be not indicative of anything at all, except perhaps the fact that Obama continues to draw on the support of African Americans.

I posted my own impressions of the event on Ocean (no need to link -- those of you who know where to find me can do so) before reading Ann's post and so I can honestly say that my own photos were in no way a response to this thread.

People said that we had some Milwaukee and Chicago visitors for the event. That's conjecture. Madison surely has a nonwhite population. I myself stood next to a Laotian group and a large clan of African American supporters and a bunch of white seniors. It's as if I chose the one place where students were visibly absent.

No Ritmo, you're NOT giving us the "outsiders" view. You're giving the standard issue Liberal/Leftwing party line.

You've never shown one instance of independent thought. You simply echo whatever the NYT or NPR or the WaPo or your College Professor says. That's why you're so boring. You constantly troll Althouse because you're upset that someone, somewhere, isn't parroting the party-line and you -by Gad - are going to set them straight.

And you do it without one ounce of wit or intelligence. You're simply a dullard. A parrot who thinks he's a thinker - a liberal conformist who thinks he's an "outsider".

The ebullient and garrulous Hubert Humphrey had an extremely difficult time getting anyone to attend his campaign events as he would never let one word suffice when he could use twenty five instead. This unending stream of rhetoric that was termed “verbal diarrhea” by influential reporter RW Apple is a style that has long since gone out of use except in late night television commercials for super absorbent towels and the blog posting of Senator Humphrey’s great grandson who carries on the Minneota Senators obsession with liberal politics and underage Brazilian women.(Pressing the Flesh, Presidential Campaigns and the People Who Run Them, Doris Kearns Goodwin, E Knof & Sons, 2009)

No Ritmo, you're NOT giving us the "outsiders" view. You're giving the standard issue Liberal/Leftwing party line.

You've never shown one instance of independent thought. You simply echo whatever the NYT or NPR or the WaPo or your College Professor says. That's why you're so boring. You constantly troll Althouse because you're upset that someone, somewhere, isn't parroting the party-line and you -by Gad - are going to set them straight.

And you do it without one ounce of wit or intelligence. You're simply a dullard. A parrot who thinks he's a thinker - a liberal conformist who thinks he's an "outsider".

1. You don't know what I read.

2. I don't visit other rabidly partisan right-wing sites.

Maybe that's because they know the difference between taking oneself seriously and not, rather than just making an ass of oneself by not seeing or knowing the difference. They do a better job of getting their partisanship right. You guys actually, and pathetically, think you can engage anyone outside the bubble.

And that's funny.

3. Most people here are not anywhere near as original or witty as they'd like to think. I'll let you know where the exceptions are. But they certainly ain't "rcocean". An ocean of banality, he is.

The speech of Harry S. Truman on his much vaunted “Whistle-stop” campaign tour were the critical factor in his upset come from behind defeat of Thomas Dewey. Much less successful was George Hebert Walker Bush’s vaunted “Whiffenpoofs” tour where he ended each speech with a short selection of tunes with his Yale classmates in their famous barbershop quartet.(Pressing the Flesh, Presidential Campaigns and the People Who Run Them, Doris Kearns Goodwin, E Knof & Sons, 2009)

The only two campaigns we will not review are those of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and William Jefferson Clinton as their idea of “Pressing the Flesh” is best not discussed in polite society.(Pressing the Flesh, Presidential Campaigns and the People Who Run Them, Doris Kearns Goodwin, E Knof & Sons, 2009)

One of the major problems with setting up the venue for a Presidential speech is making sure that food spread backstage is appropriate. President Jimmy Carter insisted on a large bowl of M&M’s backstage with all of the brown ones having been removed. President James Buchanan insisted on large quantities of sausages and the newly invented “Hot Dogs” which he insisted on swallowing whole without a bun. And of course as a Muslim, President Barack Obama insists on only halal meats for his backstage repast.(Pressing the Flesh, Presidential Campaigns and the People Who Run Them, Doris Kearns Goodwin, E Knof & Sons, 2009)

Lyndon Baines Johnson was noted for having a tremendously dry and nervous demeanor when he gave a speech on the hustings. Which surprised everyone who knew him as a superb raconteur and tall tale teller from his days as the Majority Leader. In fact most observers agree that he could have had a second term if he had only addressed the nation from his toilet seat.(Pressing the Flesh, Presidential Campaigns and the People Who Run Them, Doris Kearns Goodwin, E Knof & Sons, 2009)

Trooper, speaking of Lyndon Johnson and bathroom humor, did you ever get the YouTube link I sent to Chicklet of LBJ ordering extra slacks from Haggar while belching loudly and describing how much room he'd like around his "bunghole"?

It was hilarious.

He also goes on to the tailor about how much room he'd like "down where your nuts hang".

I disagree -- Ritmo's biggest problem is that once he starts gassing away with his over-inflated bog-standard Leftyisms, he seems to feel compelled to respond, sometimes repeatedly, to every single heckler, every time, as though in fear that somebody, somewhere, might get in a last word on him. This results in comment threads that are waaay over their bloviation limit.

I live in the South and never go anywhere that is as white, totally white, as the crowds in the Althouse pictures. I will never again have one scintilla of interest in the racial theories/ideas of the white bread commentators on this blog. I suspect the turnout was so great because the students and faculty wanted to gaze upon an actual black person. I certainly don't want a lecture, ever, on race from any professor, student or resident of Madison fucking Wisconsin.

I'm not suspicious of the tea party because of the black-white issue. I'm suspicious of them because (by and large) they tend to be hostile to secularism, rely on absurd hyperbole (do people really think Obama is a communist and not an American citizen?)and are opposed to a health care reform that has given millions of people access to medical insurance for the first time. Not to mention the fact that they have embraced a staggering amount of nutters (Beck, O'Donnel, Angle, Gingrich)and appear to be suffering an amusing case of cognitive dissonance. This recent Matt Taibi piece sums up my feelings pretty well:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0

Minzo:Conservatives have as much disdain for tools like John Kerry, Barney Frank and Al Gore as you do for Angle, ODonnell and Palin [three women btw- are you sexist?]. To each his own, do you have a problem with that?

Secularists look down on people who are religious and your protest signs claimed Bush was Hitler, a monkey, etc.

And Obama may not be a communist but he is as close to a socialist as possible [he is all about policies that re-distribute money and seek equal outcomes not equal opportunity]

Minzo: Let me make a suggestion. Never get information on conservatives in any of their variations from Rolling Stone magazine. Likewise I would not rely on the American Spectator for music reviews. A better approach is to read conservative journals on your own and come to your own conclusions about the content of the ideology. The "tea party" is easily satirized by those with preconceived ideas so I suppose it is easy enough to be cool by adopting a cynical attitude towards the movement. Your list of "nutters" suggests that you know very little about these people and have a received view of them: received probably from the likes of Rolling Stone.

Take a look at your own affirmative minority practices before you go after the crowds who flock to see Obama.

*Facepalm*

Doctor, HEAL THYSELF!

Pretending there's the slightest bit of substance to something when there isn't is what makes it insufferable to everyone outside of Tea Party Land, Sofa King. But it's increasingly going beyond insufferable and into just plain pathetic.

But of course there is substance. That's why Althouse made a separate post about it. It is just that you, in your studied ignorance, refuse to understand it. But come, let us reason together using that time-tested method of Socratic interrogatory. And let's start with one simple question that a person of average intelligence ought to be able to answer:

The senior class is facing another year of job scarcity, and no way to pay off their student loans. My daughter's boyfriend is working 2 jobs at just above minimum wage, some 60-70 hours per week, often until 2 or even 4 a.m. just to be able to pay off his loans.

"Minzo:Conservatives have as much disdain for tools like John Kerry, Barney Frank and Al Gore as you do for Angle, ODonnell and Palin [three women btw- are you sexist?]. To each his own, do you have a problem with that?

Secularists look down on people who are religious and your protest signs claimed Bush was Hitler, a monkey, etc. "

Having an ad hominem attack in your first paragraph (Calling me sexist) is not a good sign. That said I'll bite. Even if we assume secular people look down on religious people, that doesnt change the fact that most mainstream tea party politicians say things like 'trying to return the country to God' and you can bet that will involve religion trying to control many aspects of daily life. And yes I do think there are democrats who have extreme views, but its the Christian-moral-America!America! thing that makes it more disturbing coming from the right and what makes it so easy to caricature. And how does the right accuse Obama of being full of empty rhetoric and then release a document full of fluffy rhetoric that has-and John Boehner said this directly- no solutions whatsoever?

"Minzo: Let me make a suggestion. Never get information on conservatives in any of their variations from Rolling Stone magazine. Likewise I would not rely on the American Spectator for music reviews. A better approach is to read conservative journals on your own and come to your own conclusions about the content of the ideology."

Here we go, making assumptions about my reading habits. Of course liberals can make accurate and constructive criticisms of the right just as the right can do to liberals. Merely being biased doesnt make you wrong. Lets face it- we are pretty much all biased one way or another. For your information I read right wing media and blogs as well-Malkin, Reynolds et al. but are you really telling me you never formulate opinions based on opinion pieces? I would be very suprised if not. On a side note, it strikes me that the most constructive and insightful criticism of Obama is coming from the left- Glenn Greenwald, Jon Stewart etc Stewart alone has been very effective in undermining my opinion of Obama.

Minzo, you deliberately ignore the fundamental truth of conservatism. WE DON"T WANT TO RUN YOUR LIFE! We're not Liberals. We don't care what you eat, say, think, screw or do. If there are some people whose Religious views inform their political views, how is that worse than someone whose views are informed by, say, Marxist dogma?The difference is the Left ALWAYS mandates individual behavior in their (ultimately murderous) quests to serve the State.

So, what you're saying then, is that the TEA partiers are racist; and your evidence of this is problematic signs?

"TEA" (and has that become an official acronym, BTW?), I'm sure don't have any officially racist positions; they pride themselves on trying to being as loose in their organization and vague in their proposals as they can be anyway.

To the extent that they've managed to attract some yahoos here and there who seem to loudly espouse racist or violent attitudes, they should take some responsibility for disowning that. Beck, to his credit, seems to want to not even give them the chance to get the opportunity to declare such things by asking that signage be absent when he was addressing the mall.

And yes, the Republicans' increasing inability to appeal outside of limited demographics is a problem - for them. Not for others, though.

To the extent that they've managed to attract some yahoos here and there who seem to loudly espouse racist or violent attitudes, they should take some responsibility for disowning that. Beck, to his credit, seems to want to not even give them the chance to get the opportunity to declare such things by asking that signage be absent when he was addressing the mall.

And much of this “evidence” is bogus, either from a period PRIOR TO THE TEA PARTY, or simply photographs of “plants” who wish to make the Movement look bad. Beck didn’t want signs because his rally wasn’t POLITCAL, it wasn’t about “Ritmo for Congress” it was about restoring honour. You, like Minzo, seem incapable of understanding your foe. You don’t have to agree with the TEA Party to understand it. I understand Nazism and Marxist-Leninism, and haven’t an ounce of support for either group. But until you understand, you are simply flailing away.

But of course there is substance. That's why Althouse made a separate post about it. It is just that you, in your studied ignorance, refuse to understand it. But come, let us reason together using that time-tested method of Socratic interrogatory. And let's start with one simple question that a person of average intelligence ought to be able to answer:

Who do you think the satire is directed at?

Yes, I can see your clique thought there was substance to it. That's what makes this so sad.

My guess is it's directed either at the left and/or Obama.

But the left and Obama don't need outreach to attract the votes of non-whites.

If anything, they should aim to decrease the share of the "white" (and old people) vote that the GOP has, and increase their own share of interest from white voters.

So speaking to a predominantly white crowd does constitute "diversity" for them, in a sense. If you want to go there.

Listen to what Howard Dean said about Democratic outreach efforts in 2004.

Your satire didn't even get the criticism it was trying to satirize right.

That's what makes this all pathetically ridiculous - but if it makes your side feel better, I say go for it. Feelings first, I guess. But if you want to go the socratic route, there it is for you.

"To the extent that they've managed to attract some yahoos here and there who seem to loudly espouse racist or violent attitudes, they should take some responsibility for disowning that. Beck, to his credit, seems to want to not even give them the chance to get the opportunity to declare such things by asking that signage be absent when he was addressing the mall."

And much of this “evidence” is bogus, either from a period PRIOR TO THE TEA PARTY, or simply photographs of “plants” who wish to make the Movement look bad. Beck didn’t want signs because his rally wasn’t POLITCAL, it wasn’t about “Ritmo for Congress” it was about restoring honour. You, like Minzo, seem incapable of understanding your foe. You don’t have to agree with the TEA Party to understand it. I understand Nazism and Marxist-Leninism, and haven’t an ounce of support for either group. But until you understand, you are simply flailing away.

Wow, Joe. Would you be capable of understanding Nazism or Marxist-Leninism well enough to not see any differences between what their groups would say and what a straggler (alleged plant or not) with a sign at one of their rallies would say?

Nice double standard, there. And nice on throwing the Nazism and Marxist-Leninism references in there. I suppose you think you understand the Democrats well enough to not see any difference between them and those other groups, right?

Cause that would be some hell of an understanding.

The only thing the TEA party stands for is spewing enough anti-government rhetoric to cover up the fact that they won't promote any budget cuts that don't leave 75% of it intact. Even John Boehner picked up on that and said concrete budget proposals are verboten.

And their legacy to fuzzy thinking has found its way into these pages - or perhaps it was always there.

I live in the South and never go anywhere that is as white, totally white, as the crowds in the Althouse pictures

Hard to escape black people in the South; hard to find black people in the far North. The whole state of Wisconsin is only 6% black (5% Hispanic, 2% Asian). Blacks came north for factory jobs, not to start dairy farms or breweries as the Central Europeans did. Even now, decades after the Great Migration, Alabama is 26% black; Mississippi 37% black.

I suspect the turnout was so great because the students and faculty wanted to gaze upon an actual black person.

Put your money where your mouth is. For $15K and travel expenses you can book noted black conservative and Obama rival Alan Keyes to give a keynote speech in Madison.

" Dood/doodette that says a LOT…you get your information from a comedian? You might as well listen to “Who’s Next” for commentary on British politics. You are PROFOUNDLY unserious."

Oh please if thats the best you can do then I dont know what to say. Of course you can get information from a comedian. He presents a political satire show. He catches politicians lying and being hypocrites all the time and he uses wit to catch them out. If you can just write him off the way you did then I cant help you there.

"You, like Minzo, seem incapable of understanding your foe. You don’t have to agree with the TEA Party to understand it."

I am trying to understand it. Im unlikely to agree with them (Except in the broader area of fiscal responsibility and even there I disagree on a few things)but I certainly make an effort to understand.

"Minzo, you deliberately ignore the fundamental truth of conservatism. WE DON"T WANT TO RUN YOUR LIFE! We're not Liberals. We don't care what you eat, say, think, screw or do."

Then why does the right so frequently vote for politicians who do just that? Homosexuality being a prime example. That's why the Christian link is worrying. You cant set out to create a country in the image of the bible and then leave people to do what they want.

"Again you didn't deny sexism, onoy that you didn't like being called one."

Christ, just stop beating that drum. Thats not a form of argument at all. 'You named 3 women and 1 man- you are sexist!" Seriously?

I suppose you think you understand the Democrats well enough to not see any difference between them and those other groups, right?

You need to not understand me so well, Ritmo…I didn’t “link” Democrats with Nazi or Marxist-Leninism…I was criticizing YOU for your inability or unwillingness to understand your opponent. I used myself as an example….

The rest of your screed was not comprehensible…so plants, at a rally, have to accepted and understood, even though they are plants, and not representative of the rally?

Speaking of Limbaugh, this is what the guy had to say about football, feminism, and Spanish-speaking Americans:

I ought to do a monologue about this. I think this is symptomatic of a whole bunch of things that are happening on our culture, the feminization of our culture. I see it in male, liberal sportswriters. I see how they’ve been feminized. I see how they have been feminist-ized. Our culture is more concerned with not offending our enemies today. We have a culture, if somebody attacks us, a growing percentage of our country wants to ask, “What did we do to cause this? It’s our fault.” Somehow they’ve been told and they’ve bought into the notion that America is hated deservedly. So this Spanish stuff that you see in this ad, this is just an outgrowth of America thinking it’s guilty of being so big and such a superpower that we have to reach out, we have to be nice to the people that we’ve oppressed or made angry. That’s one of the ways Obama got where he is, and I think it’s facilitating the total degradation of what used to be the American culture, because there was a distinct American culture. It’s under assault now from within.

He's quite an astute guy and a very sharp social critic, that Limbaugh.

Yes, I can see your clique thought there was substance to it. That's what makes this so sad.

My guess is it's directed either at the left and/or Obama.

Ah! This has indeed been a productive exercise, for we have established, at the very least, that you cannot or will not understand the satire, since you cannot accurately identify the target. Now, this could be a failure of the satirist, for making ineffective satire, but considering the number of other people, including Ann, who understand it perfectly well, the logical locus of failure is yourself.

You need to not understand me so well, Ritmo…I didn’t “link” Democrats with Nazi or Marxist-Leninism…I was criticizing YOU for your inability or unwillingness to understand your opponent. I used myself as an example….

The rest of your screed was not comprehensible…so plants, at a rally, have to accepted and understood, even though they are plants, and not representative of the rally?

Lol. You accuse me of not understanding my "opponent" and then turn around and tell me I wrote an incomprehensible screed. That's funny.

What you try to guess at as being my point is the opposite of what I said, actually.

And the point of all of this, seeing as how A.J.'s the only one who cares, is that Democrats don't have a problem attracting a diverse crowd (and luckily, a young one that represents the future. So criticizing them for not being diverse is a total non sequitur.

If you really understood your "opponent" you might have gotten that by now, Joe.

FLS: I didn't come to the South to "escape black people." I moved back here from California because I was a conservative sickened by my lefty friends in San Francisco who professed to be in favor of "diversity" when they never, ever, engaged with or knew any black people. I didn't want my kids growing up in Atherton where the only black person was Willie Mays. It has been my experience that most liberals are racist to the bone and full of shit besides.

I don't need to "put my money where my mouth is" relative to bringing anybody of any race to Madison and your suggestion is both preposterous and a non sequitur. The good and liberal people of Madison were able to gaze on an actual black person at taxpayer expense.

As to the populations of Mississippi and Alabama you remain a wizard at the shallow wiki dive. If you know anything at all about the area you will find that many communities are well over 50% black. The north western counties of Mississippi, for instance, are pretty heavily populated and nearly all white. Ditto north eastern Mississippi which is hill country and far from the cotton belt. I expect most black didn't migrate to the upper midwest because they are generally averse to pomposity and bland food.

Incidentally David Brooks' latest op ed piece is a paean to the mix of progressive and conservative values that California supposedly enshrined into its government - until now, of course - and dispatched from Atherton.

my lefty friends in San Francisco who professed to be in favor of "diversity" when they never, ever, engaged with or knew any black people.

San Francisco is likewise only 6% black, most of whom live near the former Naval Shipyard. One black guy I knew before law school complained that he had to go to Oakland to find a barber used to working with black hair.

I don't need to "put my money where my mouth is" relative to bringing anybody of any race to Madison

As I understand it, your argument is that the name Comedy Channel implies that all performers on it are comedians.

And my argument is that "Excellence in Broadcasting" is an obvious joke, because Limbaugh's show patently is never excellent. (Cf. "Talent on loan from God.) In titling his network the EIB, Limbaugh pokes fun at himself as any good comedian does.

fls: I wrote: "I suspect the turnout was so great because the students and faculty wanted to gaze upon an actual black person." To which your witless and nonsensical reply was:"Put your money where your mouth is."

didnt you call me sexist a few posts ago merely because I listed 3 female politicians and one male when I talked about tea party nutters? Doesn’t strike you as ad hominem eh?

Short answer “no”. Longer answer, I didn’t call you a sexist, I said your defense was poor. Again read what was written…

Minzo: Having an ad hominem attack in your first paragraph (Calling me sexist) is not a good sign.

JtCJ: …and Minzo you didn't like being called a sexist, well Bull Connor probably didn't consider himself a "racist"...didn't mean he wasn't one, he just didn't think of himself that way.

You OBJECTED to being called a “”sexist”…you didn’t defend yourself. I merely pointed out that Bull Connor might well have objected to being called a “racist,” but objected to something is not denial of its truth. It’s merely objecting….

"Even if we assume secular people look down on religious people, that doesnt change the fact that most mainstream tea party politicians say things like 'trying to return the country to God'"

There are two disconnects here. First, there are no Tea Party politicians. There are candidates the Tea Parties support due to their fiscal views. To attribute every position a politician has to the Tea Parties is as illegitimate as attributing Dennis Kucinich's views to all Democrats.

Secondly the Tea Parties have agreed to prioritize their fiscal conservatism and ignore their social views whatever they are. Nevertheless the left (and the media) insists on inaccurately attributing primarily social motivation to them. Their actual regular quote is to return the country to constitutional government, not god. As in, the constitution does not give the government the right to force me to buy health insurance.

We see clear supporting facts such as the Tea Parties refusal to take positions on non-fiscal topics including gay marriage and the mosque controversy.

This error by the left is not occurring by accident. The left has spent two generations demagogueing the rights' social views. They often accompany these attacks with a faux attempt to seem reasonable by adding that if only the fiscal conservatives were not dominated by social cons a reasonable discourse would be possible.

Now we have a movement mirroring their faux lament, and they realize they must misbrand it in the public's eyes or the hypocrisy of their own words mismatching their (if anything) increased demagoguery will prove their dishonesty to anyone not part of the left.

Michael admits he said "I suspect the turnout was so great because the students and faculty wanted to gaze upon an actual black person."

I suggested a simple way he could test his assertion that the turnout was as large as it was because an actual black person was speaking in Madison: namely to hire another actual black person -- a political rival in fact, an anti-Obama if you will -- to speak in Madison. But he cannot follow this simple logic.

My guess is that Keyes -- despite his actual blackness -- would only draw the staff of the Badger Herald and perhaps Meade to gaze upon him.

Minzo said... I'm not suspicious of the tea party because of the black-white issue. I'm suspicious of them because (by and large) they tend to be hostile to secularism

I think most people in the “tea party” are more concerned about money than anything else (taxes). That would be as secular as you can get.

(do people really think Obama is a communist and not an American citizen?)

You realize that being a communist and an American citizen are not mutually exclusive, right? Although I think more have referred to him as a “socialist” than communist. Saying he's an american and thus can't be a socialist is not much of an argument.

they pride themselves on trying to being as loose in their organization and vague in their proposals as they can be anyway.

I think that's probably Darwinian. After decades of "Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It," the only groups that have a chance of halting advancing statism are those that can't be frozen, personalized and polarized.

To the extent that they've managed to attract some yahoos here and there who seem to loudly espouse racist or violent attitudes, they should take some responsibility for disowning that.

So, if there are some racists who like Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola is responsible for disowning that?

Let me ask you something else: Have you ever heard of Zombietime? Zombie goes around photographing the statists at play and they have the most virulent signage--often right up front, not on the fringes--of any I've ever seen.

Why is that never a concern?

And yes, the Republicans' increasing inability to appeal outside of limited demographics is a problem - for them. Not for others, though.

1/3rd of blacks are now Tea Party supporters, according to a PJTV poll. Who cares about the Republicans?

All of whom are either regulars at or a proprietor of the entirely uninfluential and not widely read blog in question.

Fancy that, eh? A satirical comment made in front of the very audience that could best understand it! Utterly ineffective, obviously.

Perhaps you are confused by the fact that the *target* of a satire and the *audience* can be two totally unrelated groups of people.

The *target* of the satire in question is clearly (to everyone seemingly but yourself) "people who commented negatively on the whiteness of tea party rallies." But the *audience* is "readers of the Althouse blog." There is probably a small overlap between those two sets, but not a large one, and if you are not in the former set then consider that the satire is not directed against you at all.

there seemed to be some amount of amazement about the maps that demostrate populations by enthnicity.

I would suggest you go to factfinder.census.gov where you can create a map of anywhere in the country down to census block geography. It is not restricted to MSAs, but any geograhy you may wish to examine.

(The Crypto Jew)Of course Matt, and all the criticism of TEA Party Rallies were first made after an extensive search of the demographics of the areas in question...

AND if there is a discernible difference between populations within a sub-set the DISPARATE IMPACT is ipso facto , wait for it...RACISM. At least when the subject is a non-Progressive approved organization.

I understand that UNLESS a group matches it's demographic EXACTLY, there is eiterh relational racism or structural racism or institutional racism involved.

JoeI don't think the Tea Party is racist. I think some are not too bright - [especially with regards to taxes which presently are lower than they were when Clinton was president]. I'm sure a few in there are birthers and are uneasy with a black man who had a Muslim father being president. But that is not necessariy a racist position.

>The Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits...They [are] sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them<

Well you and Matt Taibbi, must have been asleep thru the Bush years then...NCLB...complaints Kennedy authored it, increased Federal Spending on Education;McCain-Feingold...complaintsMedicare Part D...complaints on entitlement costs

All thru the Bush years the Right complained about his spending...Sorry, you BLEWWWWWWWW it....

You are entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.

Remember, the Leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh spent most of the Bush Administration complaining about Bush and Hastert's spending.

JoeBush's spending was primarily on the war. The right [and Rush] supported the war. So whaaaat are you talking about, dude?Clearly when Bush ran up the deficit you and the right didn't decide to vote for Kerry or start a new party.

Seven MachosThat is not Taibbi's opinion. That is what the Tea Party stands for. They are against a huge national debt and the fear that taxes will increase for them someday. Do you deny that?

They key to the argument is that The Tea Party only NOW comes out against all this spending while they could not care less when Bush was in charge. This is the way partisans are. Let me give you an example. When Bush was president the left protested the wars every day. Now that Obama is president the left ignores the wars. Both sides are full of shit and only protest about something when the other side is in power. Only the worst part is the Tea Party is made up of people who get government support all the time yet pretend like someone else gets it. Most are not too bright. Or they are rich assholes like Forbes who inherited his fortune and freaks out because the tax rates might dare to go up to half of what they were when Nixon was president. [Yes, half!]

JoeYes but you are crackers if you think you can somehow fix this by ending Social Security and Medicare, which millions rely on.

Note the national debt rose about 72 percent under Bush. This wasn't only because of entitlement programs. It was mainly because Bush cut taxes yet kept spending high. And then there was the bail out and the wars.

I'm a realist. The Dems will lose the House but most likely keep the Senate. Who knows in 2012? Although I am pretty sure Palin has little chance against Obama. Romney might.

I am for raising taxes. [Crazy, I know]. It's a more sane way to cut the deficit and pay for government programs. It's called civilization. Taxes are not near as high as they were for most of the post WW2 era. We have to live within our means. Tax the rich. They had little trouble with it when Clinton was president.

Matt -- A riddle: The Tea Party types are obviously not Republicans who approved of everything George W. Bush did, because if they were they would not have started this new Tea Party thing and would have instead simply worked through the mechanisms of the Republican party.

I know you are a super brilliant and super nonpartisan and all, so help us all out with this complex conundrum.

Also, Matt, you beacon of super amazing intelligence and nonpartisan awesomeness, why not just make taxes 100 percent? Especially on those fucking rich bastards! What's the problem with that? Surely, given your level of intelligence and your cool, objective demeanor, you will have a compelling answer here.

(The Crypto Jew)Yes but you are crackers if you think you can somehow fix this by ending Social Security

Typical misdirection and lying...no one is talking about ENDING SS, reform is inevitable, unless you think you or your children are going to be able to pay an effective tax rate of 70% to pay for the looming shortfall...the tax rate is from memory from a discussion from the Clinton years.

This wasn't only because of entitlement programs. It was mainly because Bush cut taxes yet kept spending high. And then there was the bail out and the wars.

The MAJORITY of it was, or can't you read a budget chart, Defense, INCLUDING GWoT is not a majority of Federal Spending, Medicare and Social Security and Entitlements are....

I am for raising taxes. [Crazy, I know]. It's a more sane way to cut the deficit and pay for government programs.Really, so when the gov't gets more money it'll pay down the debt, right? Because that's happened all the time, right? And that's assuming that Federal spending on programs, meets it's targets and don't cost more than projected, because that's never happened, either.

It's called civilization. Taxes are not near as high as they were for most of the post WW2 era.

Of course there were massive exemptions for certain things, so the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE was 90%. Only now, Matt, my man, there aren't that many exemptions, so a 90% tax rate is really going to approximate a 90% tax rate. Let me ask you, how about I take 70% of your earnings?

We have to live within our means. Tax the rich.

Non sequitu...live within our means, but take in more money....You realize that IF we took all of Buffett's and Gates' money it would fund the government for a few weeks at most?

And tell me how many jobs have poor people created? So those rich b@stards what do they do with all that money any way?